- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101591 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHRI. ABHIJEET S/O. VAISHALL GEETHA, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. PVT. SERVICE, R/O. DOOR 14/1, WARD 25/B, NEAR VIMS HOSPITAL, NORTH CANTONMENT, BALLARI, PIN -583104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHREEVATSA HEGDE, AND SRI ABHILASH HANAMANNAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND: SMT. SPOORTHI REDDY W/O. ABHIJEET, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. SINECURE, EMPLOYED ACTOR, ANCHOR, DANCER, FASHION DESIGNER AND PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. C/O. SHIVANAND REDDY, TALUR ROAD, BEHIND CHENDRA LAYOUT, BALLARI -583123. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 23.01.2024 PASSED BY THE PRL. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CR. MISC. NO. 307/2022 AWARDING INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.7,500/- PER MONTH TO THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. (B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTIONS AS MAY BE DEEMED PROPER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 23.01.2024, passed in Crl.Misc.No.307/2022, by which, an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month is awarded as interim maintenance to be paid by the husband to the wife. The husband is before this Court calling in question the said order. 2. Heard Sri Srivatsa Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 The petitioner and the respondent get married on 25.02.2021. The relationship between the two flounders and on floundering of the relationship several proceedings are instituted by the wife against the husband or the husband against the wife. The issue in the lis does not pertain to those proceedings. The respondent-wife files an application before the concerned Court invoking Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the hands of the husband. The concerned Court, by the impugned order, directs payment of maintenance at Rs.7,500/- per month to the wife by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the wife herself is employed and is not in need of any maintenance. He would above all submit that the filing of assets and liability statement before the concerned Court is not complied with in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another1. He would submit that assets and 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 liability statement should be preferred before the concerned Court and the concerned Court should be in a position to assess the same and award maintenance or reject, as the case would be. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would admit the fact that the assets and liabilities statement was not placed before the concerned Court and would lead a decision to the Court. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass as to whether the husband and the wife prior to the impugned order directing maintenance of Rs.7,500/-, at best their respective assets and liabilities before the concerned Court. The wife is said to have filed certain assets and liability statement, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 completely false. The wife suppresses the employment that she is in. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the action contending that she is now not employed and therefore is in need of maintenance. 9. Be those submissions as they are. The non- compliance with the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha would lead to obliteration of the order and a direction to the concerned Court to consider the application of the respondent-wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., strictly in consonance with the law, after securing the latest assets and liability statement from the hands of the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife both. The exercise shall conclude within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is limited back to the hands of the concerned Court to pass necessary orders - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3009 WP No. 101591 of 2024 bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16